Not To Worry–Pretty Soon, No Republicans Will Be Influential

Gallup finds that the GOP is in retreat among almost all demographics. Meanwhile, Robert Stacy McCain does fierce battle against that most dangerous of creatures: the conservative who is taken seriously outside of the confines of the cocoon. The Gallup findings are interesting, because they show that conservatives are among the least likely to have stopped identifying themselves as Republicans, yet they remain convinced that pursuing an agenda geared towards appealing to them (and only to them) is the means to win back all the other people who have drifted away since ’01.

The Midwest figures are stunning: Republican ID in this region has dropped by nine points. This is not just the heartland, which the GOP is supposed to represent so well, but it has been the historic core of Republican politics at a national level since the founding of the party. Even having lost the Northeast is not quite as bad as being decimated in the Midwest. The GOP has even lost five points among married voters, six points among whites, seven points among men and nine points among middle-income voters, all of which are equal to or greater than the national average. This is the hollowing-out of the Republican coalition as we know it. McCain will be pleased to find that Republican ID among college graduates has dropped by ten points in the last eight years–the danger of more arrogant young punks involving themselves in conservative politics has been substantially reduced.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 80 comments

80 Responses to Not To Worry–Pretty Soon, No Republicans Will Be Influential

Your core is now in the South, not the Midwest–I note that there were losses there, but they were smaller; I’d love to see a breakout of that region and the losses there–and has been since the middle 90s. Insofar as the South is different from the rest of the country, and specifically from the Midwest, the party is or should be different, and in that regard, RS McCain sort of has a point: the Establishment infrastructure that was built lo those many years ago–including the structures that groom replacement talent–doesn’t well mimic or represent the base and the way it thinks through various public problems.

Considering crackpot McCain’s history, he might have an ulterior motive here. Like secession. And that gets a lot more probable if the republicans are reduced to a regional only party with no chance of winning a presidential election or having any influence in the congress.

I agree, the core is the south. This will make for interesting times as even the south is much more representative of the nation as a whole than it was formerly. It is entirely possible that a new south will rise, one much less friendly to Republicans. Gov Goodhair in TX clearly got a wakeup call from someone(s) – you can bet backing off his secession talk was not originally on his agenda.

The GOP and mainstream conservatives have taken it on the chin for a long time now of course. But I think things are looking better now than at time since 2005.

The reality is, the GOP and mainstream conservatives are the best hope for civilization, prosperity and limited government in America today. It’s just that nobody’s paying attention yet. But they will, oh they will.

So at this point, the various dissident conservatives, moderates, or for that matter anybody who wants to win at life instead of going on some form of government dole, they all need the GOP more than the GOP needs them. Like Janis Joplin sang, freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.

The RNC is about to rename the Democratic Party the Democrat National Socialist Baby-killing Satan Worshippers Party. That will certainly persuade those who have left the Republican Party to hurry back to the fold.

Fair point. Nonetheless, the larger point, I think, remains: McCain may not be wrong as regards the disconnection between those who represent the Republican party, as a function of its relatively new (and certainly newly empowered) base, in various Establishment outlets. I’m not sure any description of GOP politics that doesn’t account for the South and its differences from the rest of the country will be very convincing.

s/b “McCain may not be wrong as regards the disconnection between those who represent the Republican party in various Establishment outlets and the current, newly empowered Southern base.” Or something like that.

The disconnection between GOP elites and voters has existed for more than forty years. There is nothing new in this. Over the years, I have complained more about this than most, especially concerning working and middle-class folks and social conservatives, but this gap alone does not explain why the GOP’s support is collapsing in almost every demographic. The problem with McCain’s analysis, so called, is that there is no effort to understand why the party is losing ground. The answer is always “RINOism,” when that is the last thing it is. The GOP elites haven’t been “Republicans in name only,” they have been Republicans, pure and simple, and as Republicans they have used the loyalty of reliable supporters for their own purposes for decades. It’s finally coming back to bite them, and all McCain can say is “RINO!” The trouble is that you have conservatives who back the GOP no matter what it does, even now, and who continue to tie themselves to it. Everything the so-called “RINOs” have done, they have done with the enabling support of people like McCain.

I used to find the phrase “The Republican Party didn’t fail, it was [insert preferred individual/group/idea] that failed the party” laugable because of the absurdity of the statement, but it seems to be more of a calling to arms from so many conservatives now-a-days.

There is so little introspection, including in the article by The Other White McCain, on behalf of so many Republicans. Rather than identify the cause of the gap and determining how to best address the obvious shift in popular opinion in order to place themselves in a politically advantageous position 4-8 years from now, many of the party members would rather point fingers, stomp their feet, and promote ridiculous initiatives – such as passing resolutions to rename the Democratic party – as if such actions will constitute even a basic functioning opposition.

RS McCain’s position is the problem. He believes that individuals who don’t maintain the positions and arguments of the last eight years are not making legitimate arguments, but only seeking to ingratiate themselves with the dreaded liberal media(I won’t even address the myriad of straw men in his argument. How many conservative op-eds have you read advocating late term abortions anyway?). None of the positions are deemed to be legitimate or reasonable; it is only a criticism of conservative policy for criticism’s sake. And that is the problem. Rather than addressing the criticism and understanding why such criticism is resonating with the public, it is more improtant to shrug off the opposition as foolish or “selling-out” to better maintain the view that you are and always were right.

RSM’s little hissy fit demonstrates that he, and much of “mainstream” conservatism, have never understood the phrases “be careful when you fight monsters, lest you become one” and “when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you” They now tightly embrace virtually every intellectual and emotional weakness they used to condemn in liberalism.

A commenter on another blog made the comment, “The Communist Party has been consistent in its principles for over 50 years now, and they haven’t grown.” It is really the perfect rejoinder to the argument the Republicans haven’t been conservative enough. There is no silent majority anymore. And it’s not like this incompetence has been limited to the federal level. Sebelius was governor of Kansas after all. There were plenty of signs of the GOP train falling apart.

I’m not sure the GOP actually cares about, or wants, the support of the general population. They seem quite happy to shrink down to a statistically insignificant fanatical core.

In view of their leaders’ statements, notably the one about how the GOP should be like the Taliban – and also considering the rigorous attempts by extreme Christianists to turn the USAF into a fundies-only armed service, I wonder if they actually do envision (and want) a violent overthrow of the government, once their numbers consist of nothing but True Believers.

The reality is, the GOP and mainstream conservatives are the best hope for civilization, prosperity and limited government in America today. Itâ€™s just that nobodyâ€™s paying attention yet. But they will, oh they will.

Given that the GOP has not accomplished any of these things in living memory, and “mainstream” conservatives appear to be either joining the purification of the GOP or lamenting the fact that the peasants won’t return to their plots, love their hovels and listen to their bishops, how can you expect anyone to take this statement seriously?

What the heck, you have graduated kindergarten, right? In _my_ living memory, the GOP and mainstream conservatives have won the Cold War, lowered taxes, reformed welfare and strengthened the military.

Uh yeah, kindergarten and more. On your original claims:

In my lifetime, Nixon and Bush II continued or perpetrated war for domestic political purposes, one of them used torture to attempt to justify same, and violated US law and treaties to which the US is party. Conservatives have consistently exploited cultural wedge issues, and fanned divisions among Americans, for political gain. Nice work on the “best hope for civilization” front.

“Prosperity,” eh? You have some interesting definitions–or you’re in the top 5% of wealth and wages, and love the “fuck you, I’ve got mine” approach.

Under St. Reagan and Bushes I and II, national debt and deficits have risen, government has expanded, laws intrude further into personal and religious life, and cronyism was raised to an art form; so much for “limited government.”

As to your revised claims–only a child would believe the end of the Cold War was the work of one man or party, or even so nebulous a grouping as “mainline conservatives;” the notion that borrow and spend is superior to tax and spend is, indeed, kindergartenish–get back to me when you’re precious “lowered taxes” benefit the country and its citizens overall. And how could you forget top hype deregulation and its benefits to all? Welfare reform? Cite? I hope you’re not touting Medicare Drugs; or are you claiming Clinton as one of yours? Finally, perhaps you should check military experts, in and out of service, on how well the Iraq misadventure has “strengthened” the military–or just check your state’s gov on status of the National Guard. You’re getting delusional, son.

“As to your revised claimsâ€“only a child would believe the end of the Cold War was the work of one man or party, or even so nebulous a grouping as â€œmainline conservatives;â€”

Look, if you’re going to try to do any kind of analysis on this kind of thing, you’ve got to be able to get past the arc of day-to-day skirmishing and follow the broad trends of political accountability.

As far as the Cold War goes, it is well known that, say from 1968-1988, the Demo’s wanted to downplay the assertion of national interest to avoid any kind of conflict with communist states whereas the GOP had a more adversarial stance toward communism. Everybody paying attention knows this: the domestic political establishment, our allies _and_ adversaries. If this is obscure or opaque for you, maybe you should try Scrabble instead.

In the same way, you can look at the other items and give the GOP credit for all of them: strengthening the military, reforming welfare, and lowering taxes.

This isn’t to say that the GOP has accomplished everything it should: for a variety of reasons it has not won the battle wrt immigration, abortion, the welfare state, and affirmative action. Some of the reasons are excusable, some not.

But for all of this it ought to be clear that one team, who sometimes fails to uphold its principles or execute its agenda is worth our support whereas the other team who has no principles worth upholding, isn’t.

Ah. My apologies. I understood that we were speaking of the present and future. So you’re saying that if the mummified remains of “mainstream conservatives” from several decades ago, bearing no credible similarity to nor responsibility for today’s GOP, could be magically reanimated in today’s circumstances, somehow disclaim any responsibility for the shambles left by the prior few GOP presidents yet claim responsibility for any good that happened during the interregnum on a ‘broad sweep of history” basis, the nation would awake to the wonders of conservative rule and sweep them into power? My bad. So his students weren’t sufficient–you’re pining for the revived corpse of Nixon?

No wonder you’re fascinated with jabs about kindergarten and Scrabble–you’re doing politics with a Ouija board.

“Given that the GOP has not accomplished any of these things in living memory,….”

“I understood that we were speaking of the present and future.”

Forgive me for taking you too literally.

Just to summarize, my position is simple: that today’s mainstream conservatives have accomplished very important things in our living memory. We also have credibility (wrt abortion, immigration, spending, etc) as being as being the best hope for civilization, prosperity and limited government _today_.

Most importantly, this isn’t a matter of trying to convince you of anything. If you don’t want prosperity, civilization, and limited government by all means stand in line and wait for your bailout like everybody else is doing. My guess is, even if you don’t want those things now, there will be a time when you will. Hopefully, we’ll still be around then.

“No, they havenâ€™t. TODAYâ€™S mainstream conservatives are different in many, many ways from the conservatives who helped accomplish most of the things to which you refer.”

Really, like how? As I understand it the whole context of this discussion is the argument from various stripes of dissident conservatives that the Reaganite blueprint is old hat and we need to try something else. I think it’s fair to say Daniel (among others) believes this.

So they think we’re Reaganites, we think we’re Reaganites, I think it’s legit to point out that we’ve accomplished some very important things over the last 30 years _as Reaganites_.

This doesn’t mean that we are the political equivalent of an ’80s Greatest Hits cover band. But it does mean that for those consumed by bile like the other commenter who try to say that we never accomplished anything, we say straight-up, “No. Check the tape.”

“As far as the Cold War goes, it is well known that, say from 1968-1988, the Demoâ€™s wanted to downplay the assertion of national interest to avoid any kind of conflict with communist states whereas the GOP had a more adversarial stance toward communism. Everybody paying attention knows this: the domestic political establishment, our allies _and_ adversaries. If this is obscure or opaque for you, maybe you should try Scrabble instead.”

Who initiated conflicts with communist forces in Korea and Vietnam, again? Way to fail high school history.

Just to summarize, my position is simple: that todayâ€™s mainstream conservatives have accomplished very important things in our living memory. We also have credibility (wrt abortion, immigration, spending, etc) as being as being the best hope for civilization, prosperity and limited government _today_.

I leave the total illogic of the first sentence as an exercise for the reader. You want to be Reaganites? Since 1980, national debt, national deficits and size of government have increased under Republican administrations; debt and deficits have decreased during Democratic administrations. Turns out most people aren’t that concerned over size of government; they care about competence and service delivery–I doubt you want to get into conservative “accomplishments” on that front. Over the last decade, income and wealth disparities have reached 1920′s levels. We’ve had a jobless expansion, with wealth and power concentrated in the financial sector, whose profligate greed and irresponsibility damn near wrecked us. The federal government has increasingly involved itself in individual decisions, and executive power has burgeoned. You’re welcome to be proud of that record. But your credibility is limited to the 20% of the people who already agreed with you, because they’ve become convinced that someone else’s bedroom antics are more important than their own family’s welfare. Outside of that shrinking minority, you’re really not doin’ so well.

As a Westerner, I was initially attracted to Reagan and the Republicans because of the Sage Brush Rebellion. There really hasn’t been that much to cheer about, no great accomplishments, quite the opposite.

â€œAs far as the Cold War goes, it is well known that, say from 1968-1988, the Demoâ€™s wanted to downplay the assertion of national interest to avoid any kind of conflict with communist states whereas the GOP had a more adversarial stance toward communism. Everybody paying attention knows this: the domestic political establishment, our allies _and_ adversaries. If this is obscure or opaque for you, maybe you should try Scrabble instead.â€

Wow. This manages to be both false, as ScottS points out, and totally irrelevant to the initial point, which was that the GOP “won” the Cold War. Talking a meaner talk does not force empires to fall. The Soviets didn’t hear Reagan call them an “evil empire” and then suddenly decide that they couldn’t exist anymore.

(This is something which always kind of baffles me. People love to make the claim that communism “works great on paper” but doesn’t actually do good things in reality and is bound to collapse. Okay, the USSR did collapse. But if that’s the case, why does it require America opposing communism fto happen?)

Likewise, “strengthening the military” means what exactly? What makes a military stronger? The ability to fight and win wars? Which wars has the GOP fought and won? Granada? Or perhaps preventing invasions of the US. Which the Democrats have been pretty effective at as well.

Welfare reform went through a Democratic president, so it was hardly a pure GOP victory.

“Lowered taxes.” Well, yeah, okay. They’re a one-trick pony for that one. And if lower taxes for anyone anywhere is inherently a good thing, then we can celebrate this whole-heartedly. Lowering taxes consistently on the super-rich more than anyone else, on the other hand, isn’t so great, though I guess you could still be generally supportive of that.

“Since 1980, national debt, national deficits and size of government have increased under Republican administrations; debt and deficits have decreased during Democratic administrations. Turns out most people arenâ€™t that concerned over size of government; they care about competence and service deliveryâ€“I doubt you want to get into conservative â€œaccomplishmentsâ€ on that front.”

Absolutely I do. It is true that Reagan (and Republicans since) accomplished very little in terms of reforming the welfare state. Otoh, Reagan made government work again, to the point where things like Medicare Part D and NCLB became plausible.

About the size of government, maybe you (and the voters) don’t care very much about it now. But the size of government that Obama is planning will not lead to a strong economy, and you might care about it later. Then again, you might be hoping that your fellow Americans will indefinitely subsidize your lifestyle, in which case we just have to hope you get outvoted.

“Wow. This manages to be both false, as ScottS points out, and totally irrelevant to the initial point, which was that the GOP â€œwonâ€ the Cold War. Talking a meaner talk does not force empires to fall. The Soviets didnâ€™t hear Reagan call them an â€œevil empireâ€ and then suddenly decide that they couldnâ€™t exist anymore.”

That’s true as far as it goes. But the historical record of the consequences of Reagan policy toward the end of Communism is so strong, it has to be regarded as presumptive at this point. Though, you can dispute it as an academic exercise if you’d like.

“So they think weâ€™re Reaganites, we think weâ€™re Reaganites, I think itâ€™s legit to point out that weâ€™ve accomplished some very important things over the last 30 years _as Reaganites_.”

Ronald Reagan accomplished some important things when there were no “Reaganites” or their numbers were too small to play any meaningful role in policy-making. Some other folks who might claim to be Reaganites accomplished some things when working in tandem with Bill Clinton, but what exactly did so-called Reaganites accomplish under Bush I or Bush II?

Reagan made government work again, to the point where things like Medicare Part D and NCLB became plausible.

I assume by plausible, you’re specifically excluding things like effective, economical, or “small government.” I’m 61; even with a much longer baseline, your appeal to conservative accomplishments of the past rings hollow. I suppose part of your disenchantment with Obama is his return to Reagan’s tax rates?

“As far as the Cold War goes, it is well known that, say from 1968-1988, the Demoâ€™s wanted to downplay the assertion of national interest to avoid any kind of conflict with communist states whereas the GOP had a more adversarial stance toward communism. Everybody paying attention knows this: the domestic political establishment, our allies _and_ adversaries. If this is obscure or opaque for you, maybe you should try Scrabble instead.”

Oh come on. 68 Nixon becomes president, era of detente, loss of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, Gerald Ford says Poland isn’t a satellite of the USSR. Jimmy Carter, the most badass President of the late twentieth century comes in, grain embargo, Olympics boycott, defense buildup, human rights, aid to the contras and the Afghans. Reagan continued Carter’s policies, but that’s about all you can say about him.

A nice illustration of the arc of mainstream conservatism, 1968 to today: Dick Cheney–acolyte of Nixon, member of the inner circle, puppeteer to the boy president; now, defeated vice-president spouting lies, vitriol and self-justification to criticize a sitting president. An act, needless to say, he has loudly proclaimed as treason when it was his ox being gored. Good luck, Koz.

The Republicans are in total denial about the fix they are in. Either from obtuseness or unwillingness to face reality they just don’t want to talk about the huge generational, ethnic and geographical shifts which are basically leaving their party behind. Instead they focus on personalities, faux controversies and looking back to the golden Reagan era. These folks are moribund.

“A nice illustration of the arc of mainstream conservatism, 1968 to today: Dick Cheneyâ€“acolyte of Nixon, member of the inner circle, puppeteer to the boy president; now, defeated vice-president spouting lies, vitriol and self-justification to criticize a sitting president. An act, needless to say, he has loudly proclaimed as treason when it was his ox being gored.”

I’d ask you to back this up, but I doubt you would actually take the trouble to show what exactly is lies, vitriol or self-justification. I know you won’t find anything where Cheney says that criticizing the sitting President is treasonous. In any case, the most important thing to know about Dick Cheney is that he is _gone_ and whatever sins he has committed are in the past. Whereas the economic (and other) incompetence of the present Administration is very much with us.

Koz, on May 21st, 2009 at 3:17 pm Said:
“the most important thing to know about Dick Cheney is that he is _gone_ and whatever sins he has committed are in the past.”

……So who was I watching on tv this evening, a Dick Cheney impersonator……Koz is the living proof of just how big a hole the Republicans are in and the extent of their denial….I’ve no objection to his stance but it’s totally destructive of Republican hopes for return to electoral viability…….I’m afraid Dilbert had it right.

Well, mostly the reference to Jimmy Carter as the most badass president was meant as a joke. However, one thing that particularly annoys me is people who don’t see the continuity between the late Carter administration and the Reagan administration on anticommunism. People unaccountably forget that in the seventies, the Republicans were the party of detente.

Whatever one wants to say about Cheney, and I could say a great deal, he is clearly not gone. He has been *the* topic of conversation today, and has made a point of becoming a de facto leader of the opposition to the President. Over at AmSpec, Quin Hillyer is over the moon about his performance, which I suspect would not be the case if Cheney were an irrelevant figure from the past. Even Reihan, God bless him, was (I hope as a joke) floating the suggestion that Cheney might be in the mix in 2012.

Not only is he not gone, but quite a few people on the right seem to be very happy that he is not gone. I don’t think he intends to go anywhere, and will keep hitting the administration on these issues for the next several years. It is his prerogative to speak his mind, but he must be entirely indifferent to the effect he is going to have on Republican prospects. The man has Nixon-like popularity, and not as much personality, and he is becoming the leading spokesman of the GOP for lack of any credible alternatives. I know Koz thinks that the GOP is still a vehicle for all of the things that he values. Let me ask this, then: do people who want to see the GOP flourish really want Cheney leading the charge? Does this make any sense?

His continuing relevance and prominence confirm my view that national security conservatives not only have not had to pay any price inside the party for what they have done to it, but significant parts of the party want to praise and embrace the last administration’s policies in this area.

“People unaccountably forget that in the seventies, the Republicans were the party of detente.”

Well, this is because they were the party in the White House for six out of ten years in that decade, and detente was by and large a smarter policy than more hard-line approaches. Detente became a curse word for Scoop Jackson Democrats and hard-liners in the GOP, but it was not that bad of an idea. I don’t think people forget that the GOP took a leading role in this under Nixon and Ford, but they allow their perceptions of Carter to be colored by the predominance of McGovernites in the Democratic Party, and they associate McGovern, unfairly in my view, with insufficient anticommunism. Also, with Carter many people tend to remember the rise of the Sandinistas more than they remember arming the mujahideen. On the whole, though, I think Carter is remembered solely through his mishandling of the hostage crisis, which was one the main things that destroyed his Presidency, and this is then anachronistically or inaccurately read into every other part of his foreign policy.

“Even Reihan, God bless him, was (I hope as a joke) floating the suggestion that Cheney might be in the mix in 2012.”

I will go on record as predicting that, unless he has another heart attack during the next three years, Cheney will be the Republican nominee. I wouldn’t actually bet money on it, but it strikes me as increasingly plausible, and I agree with Ross Douthat that he would have been a more logical (not better or more admirable, but more logical) nominee in 2008. (It is strange that he was ruled out from 2001 onward for health and age reasons, but an older man with his own history of health problems was nominated.) Cheney will carry ten to twelve states.

Ok let’s stipulate that Cheney is the special on today’s menu. Of course he was the de facto leader of the free world for 8 years if you believe the more conspiracy-minded people on the other team, so that’s kind of a step down in any case. I don’t see Cheney as a combination eminence-grise and hate figure but not so much the figurehead for the GOP. He disdained that role when he could have had it, so I don’t see how it changes now that he’s essentially a private citizen.

I agree with Quin Hillyer most of the time, but I disagree with most of what he’s written about Cheney recently, maybe for different reasons than you respect. Cheney did horrific damage to lower-case republican governance and political accountability. I understand the part about being loyal and being able to give uncensored advice to the President, but Cheney took that way past what was justifiable. So no, I personally don’t want Cheney as a GOP figurehead.

Maybe it’s not an important point, but the only way I can see Cheney’s constant open criticism of the administration which succeeded his is if he intends on running for the Republican nomination himself in 2012. Personally, as a partisan Democrat I’d love that to happen, Cheney/Palin all the way, though of course no Republican who wanted a chance of winning would contemplate such a possibility for a moment. And yet, it would give some rationalization for Cheney’s prominence. Normally a former Vice-President would fade away, but if he’s planning a run at the Presidency, it would make sense to become the most prominent critic of the current administration as a lead-in to a run. Cheney might have health problems, but his ego is beyond all human proportions, and his sense of judgment has never been geared towards the wholy rational, only the whatever he can rationalize, so why not?

conradg, I partially agree on the first sentence; there is a significant chance that he is just doing it for pure ego. At this point, his only other choice is a quiet retirement (not even the corporate world really wants him, I’d guess).

RS McCain’s column was not just routine RINO bashing. It was a humorous attempt to explain the phenomenon of people like Frum, Parker, Noonan, etc. And he hit the nail on the head in a humorous, exaggerated sort of way.

These “conservatives” who are “taken seriously outside the confines of the cocoon” are almost without exceptions moderates. (Is this not clear?) Those who are critical of the GOP from the perspective of being farther right (Gottfried for example) or representing a different kind of conservatism (Dreher for example) are not given the same platform so it is not just a matter of taking potshots at the GOP.

If Frum and Parker are who are getting taken seriously then they can have them.

Instead of wallowing in the demographic trends against the GOP, they need to try to reverse them. They can do that by pandering (acquiescing to big spending) or by attempting to change people’s minds and convert them.

To the degree that the mainstream GOP message needs changing from a more authentic conservative perspective (non-intervention on foreign policy, less shills for big business, etc.) then those matters need to be addressed and preferably identifiably from the right.

What is to be gained by seeming to identify with Parker vs. RSM in the grand hardcore vs. RINO battle royal is absolutely beyond me.

Well, what about the firestoning that Jerry Taylor endured over at NRO? Everything he said came from a right-of-center perspective….”non-intervention on foreign policy, less shills for big business, etc.”, he’s all over that stuff….and it didn’t help him a bit. He damn near got exiled like Frum and Parker.

As Dr. Larison points out, Cheney is like Nixon minus the warm, personal touch. More importantly, his attacks on Obama are helping the President hold his base together in the face of his stark betrayal on the “preventive detention” front. Obama, like Clinton, is blessed by the low quality of his adversaries.

But wait, there’s more. Larison takes the position that the so-called “national greatness” types have the whip hand in the party. Frum thinks the theocrats are in the driver’s seat The sad truth is at the moment is that one doesn’t have to choose….any departure from either line will get you kicked to the curb.

And, taken together, that’s a helluva narrow spectrum to try to market. Grahame Greene once wrote a cute novel called Loser Take All….that appears to be the current republican strategy.

I wish there had been a little coherent conservative pushback against the credit card bill the other day….In my opinion it will lead to the usual Democratic rule of unintended consequences as credit dries up for those who need it most….but it passed the Senate by what, 90 – 5? How courageous on the part of our gallant lads in grey. So much for conservative principles.